1 CGHC010060132020 2026:CGHC:42568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.267 of 2020 Reserved on 22.09.2026 Pronounced on 30.09.2026 Surjit Singh, S/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Prop Surjit Mobile Shop, Nagar Panchayat Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Police Station Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant :Shri Amartya Bajpai appears on behalf of Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State :Shri Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar , Judge CAV Order 1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.30 16:24:01 +0530 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.177/2017, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Revisionist under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Food Complaint No.13/2016, came to be dismissed. The said proceedings emanated from the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur in Food Case No.21/2011-12, which was set aside by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 24.06.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.130/2013 and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present Revision, in brief, are that pursuant to the directions issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, the Food Inspector, Bilaspur inspected the mobile shop of the Applicant situated at Sirgitti on 08.09.2011. On entering the room adjoining the shop, eight domestic LPG cylinders of 14.2 kg. capacity of different companies were found kept therein, out of which two were filled and six were empty. On being questioned, the Applicant stated that four cylinders belonged to him and the remaining four belonged to consumers and admitted that the cylinders were supplied to consumers by charging Rs.10-20/- 3 over and above the prescribed price per cylinder. At the time of inspection, he failed to produce any explosive licence, valid licence or authority letter in respect of the said cylinders. His written statement was recorded and all eight cylinders were seized and handed over to the godown keeper of Sharda Gas Agency for safe custody. On the allegation that the Applicant was indulging in black-marketing and unauthorised sale of LPG cylinders meant for the public distribution system, a report alleging violation of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 was submitted before the competent authority. Thereafter, on consideration of the enquiry report, documents and evidence available on record, the Collector, Bilaspur passed the order dated 12.03.2013 in Food Case No.21/2011-12 directing confiscation of the said eight LPG cylinders under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said order was challenged by the Applicant in Criminal Appeal No.130/2013 and vide order dated 24.06.2013, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur set aside the same and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Collector, Food Department. Thereafter, the Collector, vide order dated 29.09.2016, again ordered for confiscation of the said LPG cylinders, against which, the Applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.177/2017, which was also dismissed by 4 Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide impugned order dated 25.01.2020. Hence, this Revision. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant argued that the Sessions Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the witnesses and the evidence available on record. It is further argued that the order passed by the Sessions Court is solely based upon the statement of the Food Inspector and has not been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court in Appeal and allow present the Revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant and argued that the order passed by the Sessions Court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case as also the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the record reflects that during inspection of the mobile shop of the Applicant by the Food Department and the Police Department, eight LPG cylinders were found kept in a room adjoining the shop. Since the Applicant failed to 5 produce any document in respect of the said cylinders, the Additional Collector, Bilaspur passed an order for confiscation of the said cylinders. Aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court, which upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. It was argued on behalf of the Applicant that two of the cylinders belonged to him, however, upon perusal of the record and the reply submitted by the Applicant, it is vivid that the Applicant did not produce any document before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in support of his claim of ownership of any of the eight cylinders. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bilaspur in the Appeal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and same is in accordance with law. Accordingly, no interference therewith is called for. 8. Consequently, the instant Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Priya